World leaders have tried and failed to call on countries to act in the common interest to curb climate change. Now, the war with Iran and its costly energy crunch has some experts wondering whether selfishness and nationalism might be a more likely way to save the planet, by increasing support for homegrown renewable energy rather than imported fossil fuels.
Some experts hope bombings of refineries, disrupted oil and liquefied natural gas shipping channels and skyrocketing fuel prices will give even the most reluctant leaders a glimpse into a cleaner, fossil-fuel-free future.
But others are dismissive, pointing out that the same speculation has arisen before and quickly fizzled out, as happened recently with Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. This has prompted some European countries to replace natural gas with dirtier coal.
“It’s just wishful thinking,” said Rob Jackson, a climate scientist at Stanford University who tracks global carbon dioxide emissions.
United Nations chiefs will argue the opposite on Monday.
“The turmoil we are witnessing in the Middle East today is a clear indication that we face a global energy system that relies largely on fossil fuels – with supplies concentrated in a few areas and where every conflict has the potential to send shockwaves through the global economy,” U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said in an email to The Associated Press. “In past oil crises, countries had no choice but to suffer. Now they have an exit ramp.”
“Indigenous renewable energy has never been cheaper, more accessible or more scalable,” Guterres said. “Resources for the clean energy era cannot be locked down or weaponized.”
Act alone vs act together
The annual United Nations climate conference aimed at global cooperation has achieved little. The recent COP30 meeting in Brazil ended with a statement that did not even mention the word “fossil fuels,” let alone include a timetable for reducing fossil fuel use. Guterres said at the time that he “cannot pretend that COP30 has delivered everything it needs to.” Under President Donald Trump, whose attacks on Iran have raised new energy concerns, the United States did not even attend the Brazil meeting.
Although global renewable energy use and new capacity installations have soared, outpacing the growth of fossil fuels, the world’s use of fossil fuels continues to increase every year, and emissions of heat-trapping carbon dioxide and methane rise to new highs year by year. This is driving atmospheric warming, which increases costly and deadly extreme weather around the world, including dangerously high temperatures.
“The bottom line is that for at least the next five years and probably longer, emissions reductions are really going to be largely a unilateral solution,” said Michael Oppenheimer, a professor of climate and international affairs at Princeton University. “If countries see the Israel-U.S.-Iran war as further reason to exit fossil fuels by relaxing domestic opposition to necessary policies, then that will be done unilaterally at the domestic level.”
The moment of opportunity may be here
Carolyn Baxter, director of the Aggregated Risk Lab at the Strategic Risk Council in Washington, said shipments of fossil fuels to various ports have slowed “dramatically” because of the conflict. This is a really big deal for countries like Japan or South Korea that rely on tankers arriving at ports to deliver energy, she said.
Baxter said she “wouldn’t be surprised” if anyone turned to green energy because of the conflict, as renewable energy is more stable than fossil fuels.
“I think, rightly or wrongly, there is an opportunity for countries to really turn inward and try to build their capabilities in a way that cuts off dependence on other countries,” said Baxter, who served as the deputy assistant secretary of defense for force education and training during the Biden administration from 2021 to 2024.
Baxter said that if she was right and if “everyone did this in their own backyard” it would limit future climate change “without the tricky diplomatic negotiations of international climate conferences and the fawning and intrigue behind closed doors”.
Ana Maria Jaller-Makarewicz, energy analyst at IEEFA Europe, said the war would lead to the installation of more solar panels and heat pumps in the coming months.
Ukraine’s reality check: ‘Totally wrong lesson’
More skeptical analysts point to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine a few years ago, which caused huge difficulties for Europe’s gas supplies but did nothing to change the world’s dependence on fossil fuels. Politicians often turn to other fossil fuels to address energy insecurity caused by war, such as coal, which releases more heat-trapping gases.
Pauline Heinrichs, a lecturer in war studies at King’s College, UK, said: “We are seeing this at European level, with post-2022 actors slowly wanting to move away from the energy transition, which is exactly the wrong lesson.”
Geoff Dabelko, a climate and conflict expert at Ohio University, and Neta Crawford of the University of St. Andrews, author of “The Pentagon, Climate Change, and War: Charting the Rise and Fall of U.S. Military Emissions,” say many countries such as China and India, already the world’s No. 1 and No. 3 carbon emitters, may shift to greater use of coal, just as Europe did at the time.
Wars and armies pollute the air
Whatever happens to countries’ energy choices, the war itself will cause emissions to surge.
Even before the conference began, reports showed that the world’s military annually accounts for 5.5% of the planet’s heat-trapping emissions, more than any country except China, the United States and India.
Fighter aircraft consuming huge amounts of fuel and releasing carbon dioxide and other pollutants is just one example, said Crawford, co-founder of the Cost of War Project at Brown University’s Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs.
“The consequences of the emissions war will far outweigh the increased emissions offsets due to enthusiasm for the green transition,” she said.
___
Borenstein reported from Washington, and McDermott reported from Providence, Rhode Island.
___
AP’s climate and environment coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. The Associated Press is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s criteria for working with charities, supporter lists and grant coverage at AP.org.
